A Little Paradox in the Design of Regulatory Mechanisms
Several incentive mechanisms have been suggested in the literature to induce regulated monopolists to choose welfare-maximiz ing prices and cost levels for their services. Among the desirable pr operties of such mechanisms is that their application should be contr ollable by third parties ("verifiability"). A mechanism recently de signed by Sappington and Sibley (1988), incremental surplus subsidy, which is otherwise ideal in its properties, fails to be verifiable. A verifiable crude first-order approximation to this mechanism retains some, but lacks other, of the nice properties possessed by increment al surplus subsidy. This paper therefore analyzes closer (second-orde r) approximations to incremental surplus subsidy. Paradoxically, thes e approximations in a crucial sense are shown to perform worse than t he cruder approximation. Copyright 1988 by Economics Department of the University of Pennsylvania and the Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association.
Volume (Year): 29 (1988)
Issue (Month): 3 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 160 McNeil Building, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6297|
Phone: (215) 898-8487
Fax: (215) 573-2057
Web page: http://www.econ.upenn.edu/ier
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=0020-6598 Email: |
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ier:iecrev:v:29:y:1988:i:3:p:467-76. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.